From the Judgment and Order, dated November 3, 1976 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in W.P 16 of 1971 and from the Judgment and Order dated August 5, 1977 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Revision Application No. 29 of 1977. res

Excerpt: - sections 115 & 47: [markandey katju & v.s. sirpurkar,jj] revisional jurisdiction execution of decree for permanent injunction - obstruction by defendant -executing court issuing non-bailable warrants against defendant - revision by defendant - court by accepting fresh documents expressing doubt about title of plaintiff and correctness of commissioners report held, order passed is without jurisdiction. court has tried to go behind the decree, which is not permissible. - a strong presumption arises in favour of wed-lock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife......an adventurist challenge to the factum of marriage between the two, by the petitioner in this special leave petition, has been negatived by the high court. a strong presumption arises in favour of wed-lock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. in this view, the contention of shri garg, for the petitioner, that long after the alleged marriage, evidence has not been produced to sustain its ceremonial process by examining the priest or other witnesses, deserves no consideration. if man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, half a.....

Judgment:ORDER

Krishna Iyer, J.

1. For around 50 years, a man and a woman, as the facts in this case unfold, lived as husband and wife. An adventurist challenge to the factum of marriage between the two, by the petitioner in this special leave petition, has been negatived by the High Court. A strong presumption arises in favour of wed-lock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. In this view, the contention of Shri Garg, for the petitioner, that long after the alleged marriage, evidence has not been produced to sustain its ceremonial process by examining the priest or other witnesses, deserves no consideration. If man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, half a century later, by eye-witness evidence that they were validly married, few will succeed. The contention deserves to be negatived and we do so without hesitation. The special leave petitions are dismissed.